Is the Bible Unique?

A response to Chapter 1 of Josh
McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict

Introduction

In this chapter, arch Christian apologist Josh McDowell
attempts to show that the Bible is unique among all the books of
religious significance.We shall examine his evidence point by
point, following his own numbering system.

It should be noted at the outset that there is a fundamental
problem with this entire approach. Even if it were possible to
show that the Bible is unique, it still would not add anything to
the discussion of whether it is true or not. Simply because a
document is unique does not automatically mean that one will be
assured of an afterlife in Paradise by following its precepts.
McDowell mentions this point several times, but it still did not
seem to prevent him from expending much ink and energy on the
subject.

2B. The Bible is Unique

1C. Unique in its Continuity

1. Written over a 1600 year span.

There is a rather severe logical gap that underpins this
point. It assumes that the Bible is a unit, which, obviously, it
is not. It would indeed be remarkable to find a single work
continuously written over such a timespan, but the Bible is not
such a work. It is in fact a collection of books, all of which
had different authors and origins. These books were collected
into volumes in various groupings at various points along the
historical timeline. The timespan of the Bible is thus more an
artifact of its history, rather than relating in any way to its
supposed inspiration.

This point also assumes that the traditional dating of the
Biblical books is correct. Unfortunately, in reality the date and
provenance of many of the books that make up the Bible are
difficult to pin down. In addition, there is the added problem
that a number of these books show signs of multiple authorship,
as well as later redaction and editing. This further complicates
the question of absolute dating.

Critical scholarship holds that the Pentateuch did not achieve
its final form until well after the Exile, although the sources
that make up the early Old Testament are probably pre-exilic.
This means that it is basically impossible to determine when the
earliest parts of the Bible were written. (For this and other
references, see the suggested reading list at the end of this
article).

If we assume that the four books of Kings were based on
primary sources, they would date back to about 1000 BCE, although
such an early date is generally rejected by higher critics. The
prophet proto-Isaiah probably dates to around 800 BCE. Thus we
can say that the earliest recognizable parts of the Old Testament
probably began to appear in about 1000 BCE, if we allow the books
of Kings as primary sources.

The youngest part of the (Protestant) canonical Old Testament
would probably be the book of Daniel, written during the reign of
the Greek emperor Antiochus IV, around 164 BCE.

This then gives us a range of about 830 years for the Old
Testament.

The books of the New Testament probably range from about 45 or
50 CE for the letters of Paul, to 96 CE for the Apocalypse of
John. Some higher critics place some of the letters of
pseudo-Paul early in the second century, but this position,
although based on good scholarship, is not easily defended due to
a lack of historical witness.

This then gives us a range of about 1000 BCE to about 100 CE
for the whole Bible, roughly 1100 years. This is about 500 years
short of McDowell's assessment.

However, even if we allow the 1600 year span given by
McDowell, it is still not easy to see how this makes the Bible
unique. In terms of age, there are religious texts which have
their origin before the earliest parts of the Old Testament. The
Hindu text known as the Rig (royal) Veda dates from sometime
before 1000 BCE, possibly as early as 1500 BCE, making it at
least as old as the Old Testament, and probably older. Likewise,
the Hindu Upanishads date from sometime between 1400 and 800 BCE,
again on par with the earliest Old Testament documents. The Hindu
scriptures are a vast body of literature, which include such epic
poems as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (which contains the
famous Song Celestial, the Bhagavad-Gita). The collection and
writing of the Hindu scriptures continued well into the Christian
era, giving them a span at least as long as the Bible, and
probably longer.

Ironically, this very fact is mentioned by McDowell in his Handbook
of Today's Religions. On page 284, we find the following
statement:

The Hindu scriptures, written over a period of 2,000 years
(1400 B.C.-500 A.D.) are voluminous. They reflect the
practices and beliefs which arose during the different long
periods of Hindu history.

One is forced to ask how a putative span of 1600 years makes
the Bible unique, while a span of 2000 years for a different set
of Scriptures passes without comment.

Therefore, we conclude that the Bible is not unique in this
regard.

2. Written over 60 generations.

See point number 1. The same applies.

3. Written by 40 plus authors from every walk of life,
including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets,
statesmen, scholars, etc.

The same objection that we raised in point 1 can be raised
here. Just as we don't know exactly when the various books of the
Bible were written, so we cannot be sure who the authors were.
The books of the Bible are, for the most part, anonymous, and
even when the author is given, we still cannot be sure that an
anonymous author has not simply co-opted the name of a famous
historical personage in order to give his book more credence.
This practice has a long tradition outside of the Bible, and
there is no reason to assume that the Jewish and Christian
authors did not engage in similar duplicity.

The book of Daniel is an excellent example. Although the book
itself claims that it was written by the historical Daniel
(mentioned in Ezekiel
14:14, 14:20
and 28:3),
internal and external evidence
places the origin of the book in the late Hellenistic period,
about 164 BCE.

In a similar vain, the Pentateuch is usually ascribed to
Moses, even though it consistently refers to him in the third
person, and even records his death. An analysis
of the Pentateuch shows that it was created from a number of
different sources by unknown editors.

McDowell lists Moses, Peter, Amos, Joshua, Nehemiah, Daniel,
Luke, Solomon, Matthew and Paul as authors of the Bible. Of
these, only Nehemiah and Paul can be substantiated. The Gospels
are anonymous; their ascription to Jesus' disciples and their
aides is part of a later Church tradition. There is no hard
evidence that Moses or Joshua are even historical personages;
even Solomon is something of an enigma.

Again, even if we allow the traditional authorship as listed
by McDowell, it still does not make the Bible unique. The Hindu
scriptures, too, are the result of the combined input of many
different authors from many different times and stations.

4. Written in different places

This point only follows if one accepts the traditional
authorship of the books of the Bible. And again, it still does
not make the Bible unique in any way.

5. Written at different times.

McDowell here gives David in times of war, and Solomon in
times of peace. Quite aside from the problem of authorship (it
has not been established that David wrote any of the Psalms, nor
that Solomon wrote any of the Proverbs), it is difficult to see
the point here. One is forced to ask exactly how this bears on
the uniqueness of the Bible.

6. Written in different moods.

See point 5.

7. Written on three continents.

McDowell does not specify which authors wrote on which
continents, but he lists Asia, Africa and Europe. This is
somewhat deceptive, since he really means Palestine, Egypt,
Mesopotamia and Italy. This is a much smaller area than his
sweeping inclusion of "three continents" would imply.

Again, the same objections of unknown authorship would apply.
It is almost certain the the book of Daniel, for example, was not
written in Babylon or Persian, but rather in Palestine by an
unknown Jew in the second century BCE. Nor is it certain that
parts of Jeremiah were written in Egypt, as has been asserted.

As with the previous points, we are forced to ask how this
contributes anything to the Bible's putative uniqueness.

8. Written in three languages

McDowell lists Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In fact, only parts
of Daniel and a few other very brief sections of the Bible are
written in Aramaic (a fact, by the way, that directly argues
against an early date for Daniel). The Old Testament was written
almost exclusively in Hebrew, and the New in Greek.

Having said this, however, it is still not easy to see how
this makes the Bible unique. The Hindu scriptures, too, are
written in several different forms of Sanskrit for the early
works, and various local dialects for the later works.

9+10. Biblical authors spoke on hundreds of
controversial subjects with harmony and continuity from Genesis
to Revelation.

McDowell fails to list these "hundreds of subjects"
(except for one - see later). The reason is not hard to find -
the statement is simply untrue. One does not have to read the
Bible for very long to find that its various authors disagree on
even the very basic issues.

For example, the New Testament speaks volumes about Heaven and
Hell as the ultimate destination for mankind, but one would be
very hard pressed to find the Old Testament referring to Heaven
as the eternal destination of the righteous. Even the concept of
Hell in the Old Testament is subtly different to that of the New.
The Old Testament writers, for the most part, used Hell either as
a metaphor for the destruction of Israel's enemies, or as a
synonym for the grave, the final resting place of all men,
whether good or bad.

Polygamy is another good example. Although the New Testament
seems to be set on the ideal of monogamy (though this is never
explicitly stated), the Old Testament embraces the subject
freely. The Patriarchs were all polygamous, and never once were
they censured for it. Solomon was berated for having many wives,
and then only because they did not belong to the faith of Yahweh.
The Mosaic Law even contained provisions relating to inheritance
for the children of multiple wives (Deuteronomy
21:15-17).

Far from affirming the unity of the Bible, the apostle Paul
invalidated huge sections of it with one stroke, by claiming that
the Mosaic Law no longer had any force over Christians (Galatians
2:16).

McDowell's one reference is to "God's redemption of
man". Even this is a subject that is read into the Bible,
not out of it. The Old Testament knows nothing of an atoning
sacrifice made by a semi-divine Messiah. Biblicists insist that
this is implied by the Jewish sacrificial system, but this is
nowhere stated in the Old Testament. The ancient Jews had no
concept of being "born again". This is a strictly New
Testament concept. Nowhere does the Old Testament teach that the
Messiah would sacrifice his life for the sins of mankind, except
for one solitary passage - Isaiah
53:4-6, which does not even explicitly refer to the Messiah,
despite the claims of Biblicists.

In short, this claim can only be described as misguided at
best, and completely dishonest at worst. There are very few, if
any, New Testament concepts that are explicitly stated in the
Old. The mere fact that Christianity is composed of literally
hundreds of splinter sects, all of whom can affirm their own
unique views of the Faith with long lists of proof texts, argues
eloquently for the view that the Bible is simply contradictory on
many important issues.

2C. Unique in its Circulation

McDowell here gives a number of facts and figures for the
distribution of the Bible by various Bible publishing concerns.
While there is no reason to doubt these figures, McDowell is
mistaken in claiming that they "...factually show the Bible
is unique". At best, they simply show that the Bible is an
outstanding member of a certain class of books, that of religious
scriptures that have been widely disseminated. The Book of
Mormon, for example, is made freely available by the Mormon
Church, and is widely distributed in many different countries.

Another logical fallacy is implicit here. The Bible's wide
distribution is an attribute of its adherents - it is not a
feature of the text itself. Thus, this point actually applies to
the Christian Church, not directly to the Bible.

3C. Unique in its Translation

McDowell here commits the same logical fallacy as the previous
point. The fact that the Bible had been widely translated is due
solely to the efforts of Christian believers. It is in no way a
feature of the text itself.

English translations of The Koran and the Bhagavad-Gita are
available. The Book of Mormon is available in a number of
different languages. Once again, despite McDowell's claim, this
does not make the Bible unique, merely an outstanding example of
a certain class of documents.

4C. Unique in its Survival

1D. Survival through Time

McDowell here lists the vast number of manuscript copies of
the Old and New Testaments. Again, these figures are beyond
dispute, but it has to be asked how they bear on the Bible's
uniqueness. Simply because we can be sure of the New Testament
text does not indicate that the text itself is reliable. The text
of the Koran is, if anything, even more secure than the Bible,
yet McDowell would no doubt reject it out of hand as a work of
divine inspiration.

Further, McDowell fails to mention that the text of some books
is still very much in doubt, despite the vast manuscript
tradition. The book of Jeremiah, for example, is attested by two
sharply different texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of which
supports the Masoretic tradition, and the other the Greek
Septuagint. It is not possible to tell which text, if any, best
represents the original.

2D. Survival through Persecution

McDowell here points out that the Bible is still circulated
despite repeated attempts to have it banned or outlawed. While
this is probably true, it is a feature of a large number of
religious texts, not simply the Bible. The Islamic offshoot known
as Bahai ran into severe persecution at the end of the nineteenth
century in Persia. The sect itself was outlawed, and its members
threatened with death. The writings of Baha'a'ullah were outlawed
and burned, yet the sect still persists today, with all of its
writings intact.

Further, the survival of the Bible, despite repeated attacks,
is a testament to the stubbornness of its adherents, not a
feature of the text itself.

3D. Survival through Criticism

McDowell here points out that the Bible is still read, studied
and revered, despite the flood of critical works that have been
unleashed upon its pages.

The Book of Mormon is still studied, read and believed by
millions of people worldwide, despite the fact that both
archaeology and textual criticism have conclusively proven that
the book is nothing more than an amateurish fake. McDowell would
no doubt agree with this statement.

It is still studied and accepted as true in spite of the
facts, not because it is true, but simply because its
believers lack the capacity of rational thought necessary to
realize that it is a fake. One does not have to look very far for
a reason why the Bible is still believed, despite the fact that
critics have conclusively shown that it cannot be God's inerrant
Word.

McDowell commits a number of blunders in this section. He
declares the Documentary Hypothesis invalidated because it has
been established that the art of writing did, in fact, exist in
the time of Moses. This is not the primary thrust of the
Hypothesis. Instead, the Documentary Hypothesis holds that the
early parts of the Old Testament are constructed from a number of
different sources, combined by later redactors into one set of
books. This theory is still the best explanation of many puzzling
features of the Pentateuch, such as its wildly variable style of
narrative, and the fact that it contradicts itself on countless
occasions, sometimes in the same story.

McDowell trumpets the fact that the walls of Jericho fell
outwards as proof of the Bible's accuracy. What he fails to
mention is that archaeology has established that Jericho was not
inhabited during the time of the Conquest. The destruction of the
city dates from a much earlier period.

5C. Unique in its Teachings

1D. Prophecy

The issue of prophecy is a complex one which has been dealt
with a number of times by various competent writers. The bottom
line is that a close examination of the putative prophecies of the Messiah will reveal
that they are little more than wishful thoughts, wrenched out of
their proper context by writers who did not understand the texts
they were dealing with.

McDowell, quoting Wilbur Smith, makes the statement that
"Mohammedism cannot point to any prophecies of the coming of
Mohammed uttered hundreds of years before his birth".

In fact, this is incorrect. A number of Muslim apologists have
pointed to John
14:16 and 16:7-14
as a prophecy of Mohammed. (For example, the Muslim apologist
Akbarally Meherally used this defense in his pamphlet Did
Jesus and Isaiah prophesy the coming of Muhammad?) Christian
apologists would no doubt counter that this statement of Jesus,
in context, refers to the Holy Spirit, and was fulfilled on the
Day of Pentecost. The Christian apologist has thus accused the
Muslim of doing the same with the Scriptures as Matthew did with
Isaiah (Matthew
1:23) and Jeremiah (Matthew
2:18).

2D. History

McDowell here states that the intricate history of the Jews
recorded in the four books of Kings is unique among all the
ancient historical works. In fact, this is not entirely correct.
Robin Lane Fox (The Unauthorized Version, page 164)
explains:

In Babylonia, especially during the seventh and sixth
centuries BC, the past was a lively subject for those who
were literate. It was recorded in the diary records of
astronomers, the books which were concerned with omens and
predictions from them, and also in a long and remarkable
continuous chronicle. This Babylonian Chronicle is a most
significant rediscovery of recent scholarship. We are now
aware of a long sequence of texts which listed major events
and dated them year by year, beginning in 747 BC and running
on past 539 BC (the coming of the Persians) and beyond
Alexander the Great.

Further, McDowell fails to point out that there are some
significant problems with Jewish history. While the later reigns
of the Kings, from the Assyrian captivity of the Northern
Kingdom, down to the Babylonian captivity of the Southern
Kingdom, are fairly well attested by external sources, the
earlier Kings are not. Saul is completely alone in history. The
House of David is referred to once (possibly twice) on a carved
stone monument. Solomon is not mentioned at all.

3D. Personalities

McDowell here points out that the Bible unflinchingly records
the sins and failures of its characters. This is true, although,
of course, other religious texts also contain polemics against
the faithful for straying from the course.

In Section 3 of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of
the standard works of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith himself is
chided for placing his trust in a '...wicked man, who has set at
naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred
promises...' (Martin Harris, a close associate of Joseph Smith
during the formation of the Mormon Church, and one of the
Witnesses to the Book of Mormon).

In addition it should be noted that the Bible also records the
murders and atrocities committed by God himself, such as his act
of genocide against the Amalekite nation, as recorded in I Samuel
15. Here, we find the just and loving God of the New Testament (I
John 4:8, II
Peter 3:9, James
1:17) commanding the Israelites to massacre men, women,
children and infants.

6C. Unique in its influence on surrounding literature

Here we find ourselves in agreement with McDowell. The Bible,
especially the King James Version of the Bible, has had an
enormous impact on English thought and literature, and spawned a
flood of supporting literature, studies, dictionaries,
commentaries and countless hymns. However, the same could be said
of other religious documents. One simply has to look at the huge
volume of writing that has sprung up around the Koran over the
centuries.

One is forced to ask, again, how much of this is due to the
Book itself, and how much is due to the efforts of the Bible's
army of adherents and interpreters?

3B. The Conclusion is Obvious

And indeed it is. We find no compelling reason to believe that
the Bible is unique, in the sense of a one-of-a-kind,
God-breathed Book. The feats here listed by McDowell are easily
matched by a number of other works of religious significance. In
many cases, we find that the points that McDowell raises in
defense of the Bible's uniqueness

a) are actually points in favor of the Bible being an
outstanding member of a class of documents. The Bible's
dissemination and translation are two such areas.
b) have no bearing on the issue of uniqueness, such as the places
and moods in which the Bible was written.
c) are actually features of the Bible's believers, not the text
itself. Such points would be survival under persecution and
criticism.
d) are simply untrue, such as the statement that the Bible is a
harmonious whole, or that it is unique in the type of history it
portrays, or that it contains fulfilled prophecy.
e) are superseded by other works, such as the 1600 year span for
the Bible, compared to the 2000 year span of the Hindu
Scriptures.